Alpha Male Of The Month

A book review of Frank Langella’s memoir “Dropped Names” offers a glimpse of the charmed life that unapologetic womanizing alpha males lead. Reading these bios of iconic historical players, greats of a golden era of gash before feminism sucked the color out of life, one begins to notice patterns in their attitudes and their behavior. Of course, there is the unrestrained sexuality — there are strong hints that Langella was bisexual, or at least enjoyed the spectacle of flirtatiously taunting gay men, and he was no stranger to bedding past-their-prime aging starlets — which provides the energy that fuels their conquests, but there is also a particular suite of personality traits that they all hold in common. The Dark Triad features prominently among these men, but so too does a knack for pleasing women by telling them what they crave hearing. Alpha males are simply better than other men at helping women experience good feelings through verbal communication.

Regarding that ability to instill good feelings, here’s Langella on an older Rita Hayworth:

He waxes philosophical about his on-set affair with Rita Hayworth when he was 34. It was her last film. She was 20 years older and suffering from alcoholism and early Alzheimer’s, yet, “in the candle’s light and fire’s glow,” Hayworth “once again becomes the Goddess.”

What the book reviewer misses (predictably, since this is the NewYorkBetaTimes) is that older women lap up flattery more hungrily because they hear, and feel, so much less of it than they did when they were younger, hotter, tighter. But that quibble aside, the impression you get of Langella is that he knew when, and how, to serenade women with words. The Woman is nature’s inborn narcissist; she loves to feel loved because at heart she feels worthy of all the world’s love. She has a vagina, after all. And who but a narcissistic man — the equal in narcissism to Hollywood starlets — could know how to properly satisfy that female need?

But the book’s stylistic imperfections add to the sense that you’re reading the uncensored diary of an indefatigably social and curious man, a modern-entertainment-industry Samuel Pepys. Narcissistic? Sure. [Langella] grants that he was especially “selfish and obstreperous” in his youth. But he’s inspiringly game.

And here we see in Langella that common suite of personality characteristics that one finds in others like him. An executive summary of the alpha male beloved by women might look something like this:

1. Be social.
2. Be curious.
3. Be narcissistic.
4. Be the mirror that reflects what women want to believe about themselves.
5. Be selfish and unpredictable.
6. Be sexually nonjudgmental.

The best players of past and present are ever-searching for new experiences, their curiosity unquenchable. They love themselves, and women are nothing if not viscerally intrigued by overconfident men. They follow their own rules, and women love rule-breakers. They are selfish, and women, despite what they say to the contrary, adore the company of self-oriented men. They are sexually unburdened, knowing as they do that an attitude that might burden a woman with doubts about her actions and cause her to dwell too laboriously on the potential consequences is a road leading away from sex.

And, perhaps most importantly, they speak the language of women.

Many acolytes to game focus their attention, justifiably, on techniques like negs (backhanded compliments) and qualifications (implying women fall short of one’s expectations). This is a good thing, because it’s in these areas that most men fail badly. But the flip side to challenging a woman’s ego is caressing her ego so that she feels free to relax around you and give her love without regret.

When Elizabeth Taylor says, “Come on up, baby, and put me to sleep,” who is he to resist? (He does make her chase him first.)

The alpha male is no stranger to flattering women; he’s just better at contextualizing it. His compliments and sweet nothings don’t hang like dead weight in a vacuum like so many beta males are apt to do with their cloying attempts to woo women. He knows that women can’t appreciate flattery from a man unless and until it is bracketed by a powerfully alluring self-regard and seasoned with a hint of manly condescension.

By his cheerful debauchery, Langella reveals something certain commentators have obscured: sluts are the best — hungry for experience and generous with themselves in its pursuit. He talks about how joyful it was in his 20s to “throw some scripts, jeans and a few packs of condoms into a bag,” and head out to do plays and bed theater ­apprentices.

Sluts are indeed the best for the peripatetic alpha male hopping from bed to bed. But sluts are far from the best for the beta males married to them, or dating them. One thing the player community must acknowledge — and I direct this in a most general way — is that the encouragement of sluttiness, and the lack of judgment of same, while certainly good for overcoming anti-slut defenses and cajoling women into surrendering their most precious asset, is not so good for society as a whole, nor for the state of male-female relations in the aggregate. The male aversion to committing long-term to inveterate sluts exists for a good reason: sluts really are a worse deal for men who have evolved to subconsciously desire paternity guarantees. Men really do value relatively chaste women more as resources in whom to lavishly invest their time and energy. Players should therefore take care to qualify their pro-slut sentiment as the sex-maximizing tactic it is, rather than some sort of high-minded philosophical stance they often like to pretend it is.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that it’s a prerequisite to suspend one’s subconscious slut judgment and actively encourage in women the jettisoning of any and all incipient shame if the lifestyle of the glamorous cad is your goal.

There is so much happy sexuality in this book that reading it is like being flirted with for a whole party by the hottest person in the room. It’s no wonder Langella was invited everywhere.

If you can successfully couple an attitude of happy sexuality with bemused mastery and outcome independent self-possession, you too can live a Life of Langella.

actually she is saying men and women seek their equals
if dat is true
den why are there so many
butthurt 30 year old women
going “oh my butt hurts my butt hurtz! where have all the good men gone? my buttholez soooooo sore form all da losstacc ococksassz! the government must legislate against all men to make up for my sore buttohohlhihohlhohloheoelsszlzzlzlzozozozolzlzozolzolzzo!!”

I am massive fan of this blog but this makes my first post. This is going to be long-winded so please bear with me:

Background: I am an early 20s professional. A 7-8.5 depending on a guy’s preference for height (I am tiny, 5’2 115, all boobs… doe eyed, tiny nose, pouty lips, brunette). Personality wise, I am sweet, soft spoken and feminine. I have never really lacked attention from men but I have been in 3 LTRs since I was 17 ranging from 2-4 years. I feel apathetic towards love in general and can’t say I have ever experienced that “crazy” in love feeling until now….

All the guys I dated previously were classic betas; they fell in love too quickly, told me they can’t live without me…and I always had the control in the relationship. Heartiste posits that deep down, girls want to be submissive and they need guys who stand their ground and take control. He is right.

Here comes Guy. He is the embodiment of an Alpha male. He is a natural born leader, extremely confident borderline on arrogant, assertive etc. He is 6 feet 1 and introduced himself by saying “Hey, you look to be about 5 feet and probably weigh 100 pounds, you are my type, what’s your number”. At first I was like “who the hell do you think you are??” but ya, I gave him my number. That was 5 months ago and now I am smitten and a little confused. Guy exhibits strong traits of an Alpha male, unapologetic, assertive, owns any given room he walks into, does what he wants etc…but he is also a good person. He flew me out to a destination spot just to celebrate my passing an accreditation exam, he is attentive when it matters and makes me feel safe and protected. I know he has options and if I make one screw up, he is out. However he just told me a month ago that he wants/demands exclusivity.

This has me all confused. He is undeniably alpha but he is also good to me and has never made me doubt his intentions. I thought Alphas were incapable of settling down with one person? I thought they were mostly aholes who just wanted to have their way and peace out? Is he still gaming me? if so to what end since I already “gave up the goods” two weeks in and it has been 5 months? It is driving me crazy trying to delineate this guy’s motives!! Do Alphas ever commit to one person? or is Guy’s game just that good?

(P.s. I know how snarky some of you guys are, I would really appreciate your thoughts, if u hate women like me, please ignore and scroll to the next comment…k thanks!)

Look, alphas take what they want. If we want to toy with a woman, we toy with her. If we want to fuck plural women, we fuck plural women. If we want to commit to a single woman, we do that too. It sounds like he wants to commit. Lucky you. Let him lead.

My wife knew that she wanted to marry me within three weeks of meeting. I did too, but I still let her dangle for about a year. I let her say the big three words first too, even though I loved her equally. This is just the way of the alpha. You can stress about it — which is the way of estrogen — or you can just buy the ticket, take the ride.

BTW, why is this man with such a short girl? A 5’2″ girl would make me feel like a child molester — and I’m only an inch taller than him.

I dunno, most playboy playmates for example are just a bit over 5′. Probably the reason they choose to do that, since I assume that even catwalk lingerie (and getting to keep you top on) has some minimum height requirements.

That said, I know a lot of guys, some fairly alpha, whose protective instinct is awakened by tiny girls or something. Can’t really theorise, since personally like tall girls.

I posted too soon, not sure if the first reply went through or not. Thanks for your reply Jason! I know that when a girl starts to dissect and analyze a guys intentions, then we have a problem! lol. Anyway, I feel lucky to have him and I have never been this submissive and lovin it (though to be honest, it took some getting used to as I am so used to doing/getting what I want). He is actually 6 2 – 6 3, definitely a foot or a little more taller than me and broad too. I find that very sexy so yes. Because of my tiny facial features, I even look younger than my age, sigh, I asked him why I was his type and his reply was that tall girls were usually the most ones who constantly hit on him (I have seen this in action) and made it too easy for him. Sexually, some of the things he does, um, I think any girl taller than 5 4 might at best be extremely uncomfortable while in such position or at worst, break their necks. :O

At 6’1 he’s borderline ‘short’ for true desirability.But he flies her around, so he’s got the moolah. Probably good-looking, although Shorty skims over that part. Result: She wants his baby, ‘game’ or no ‘game’ irrelevant.

Hi Wolfie! Yes, he has money. But so did most of my exes….I come from an upper middle class background. It is a given that many of my friends will fall into middle to upper middle class due to upbringing alone(private high schools, high ranking universities and subsequent career). I never really think about financial status as a determinative factor, as 1) I work and have my own money 2) My parents are well enough to provide should I choose not work. Guys who rely solely on their money have never moved me one way or the other due to the above, I also have never been a fan of those jerks who flash their money at bars with V.I.P booths ed hardy shirts, gelled gross hair which is common in my district. Guy is not like that. More earthy if u will, outdoorsy. When we travel we are not going to fancy restaurants etc, we are hiking, getting hammered on beaches, surfing etc. But ya he is the managing head of one of the departments at a rival finance firm. I will place him on an 7-8 on the looks scale.

Sure, It’s possible he’s legit. Stay sweet and feminine and make an effort to keep things interesting in the bedroom over the long term.Try to get him to marry you ASAP (because that’s the best deal for you) but be subtle about it. If he’s actually a higher alpha with many options and lots of experience like you say he’ll probably cheat on you at some point but this doesn’t mean you can’t have long-term happiness with him… you just either have to not find out or be ok with it. Willingness to have threesomes with him and another girl would help out a lot long term. If you’re into that I’d hint at your willingness but don’t actually start doing it until he’s put a ring on it.

Liberty risk, I try to keep things interesting although I find he takes the reigns even in the bedroom and I am always more than happy to oblige because it is exciting. He makes me go crazy in the bed….dizzy, speak foreign languages, crazy, but um, I love it. I am just afraid because I have never been this gong ho over a guy before. It is quite embarrassing because I do not know how to deal with or interpret these feelings so I googled phrases relating to my situation and then came across this blog and that’s when I became a fan! The more I read about different things here, the more I now understood why I feel the way I do towards the exes and towards Guy. I have just never been the type to even spend this much time talking about guys in general. I am embarrassed to talk to my girlfriends because I am the one who always provided rational detached advise to them. hehe.

I feel like he would cheat on me at some point but I am not sure if it is my insecurity talking or just his general tendency as an Alpha Male. I have never had a threesome but I like girls (watch a lot of girl on girl action). He is sexually intense and during the weekends can spend all day in bed….literally. Maybe it is the sex clouding my judgements? Girls do tend to lose all rational sense after sex non? But I have had sex before, great sex in fact but still never lost this rationality and control. Oh well….thanks for all the insights.

“Maybe it is the sex clouding my judgements? Girls do tend to lose all rational sense after sex non?”

I think you have a bad case of oxytocin dependency, which women could get the moment they get touched by a man to which they feel strong attraction, so taking things slow with this guy would have been more prudent. You gave up the goods after 2 weeks – too soon. So it’s obvious that sex is a BIG part of your relationship, and sadly that’s not enough. Sex is definitely clouding your judgment.

Don’t get me wrong, sex is very important, and I would say worth at least 50% of a relationship/marriage, but other factors of compatibility should also play their part and they comprise the other 50%. Now you have to be careful that he isn’t just leading you on because to him it’s all about great sex.

I don’t know if he is really going to take the plunge and marry you, since you did sleep with him for 5 months without exclusivity. When a man sees that you are willing to sell yourself short in the beginning of the connection without receiving any assurances, he doesn’t understand why you’d want or expect to change the status quo. So if he is asking for exclusivity now, I would say it’s a good sign and you should definitely give him a chance, but if he doesn’t stick to his side of the bargain don’t agree to put up with it. Unless, of course, you don’t mind an open relationship. It wouldn’t be my choice, but to each his own. Open relationships are destined for failure because 3rd parties take away the partners focus off each other. I think for a woman to give her all to a man – give him complete control over her – she needs to feel deep trust in him knowing he is completely focused only on her and won’t consider bedding other women. It’s a fair exchange – she surrenders complete control over to him and he gives her his undivided attention and exclusivity. I am not saying he can’t or won’t find other women attractive, only that he will not go there for the sake of the relationship, which is an entity of itself and should be treated that way independent of the two partners, and that means that the good of the relationship trumps his needs or his urges. However, if both of you are seeking a more egalitarian-type relationship, then such a dynamic isn’t necessary because in such relationships the woman isn’t surrendering some or all of her power to the man she loves and trusts. However, you indicated that he being such an Alpha is a turn on for you, so I don’t think you’d be happy in the long run if he were more like your ex-boyfriends. Therefore, I don’t think you are truly longing for vanilla/egalitarian-type relationship, especially after tasting a man like him. Even if you guys break up tomorrow I don’t think you’d get over him quickly, or ever forget him.

All you can do now is just play along – enjoy yourself, have fun, project happiness not worry, don’t complain or be too judgmental against him, and most importantly let him lead. That said, don’t let him walk all over you where he loses respect for you. Have some rules and boundaries (not too many, just a few) and stick to them no matter what so that he sees you have principles that even he can’t break. That will keep him intrigued. Don’t let him walk all over you. If he says he wants to possess all of you completely so he needs you to forgo all your rules for him, tell him you would for him but you need more assurances and a stronger commitment, like an exclusive marriage. I can’t stress enough, whatever you do, don’t let him walk all over you. Therefore, you need to have a few rules he knows you will not let go of, unless you got assurances from him. For example, if you didn’t have anal sex with him yet, hold off on that. Use it as one of the boundaries he can’t cross unless he gave you a ring. Some men see anal sex as a power thing over a woman. Don’t surrender such power to him unless he gave you a stronger commitment. This suggests to him that if he wants to possess all of you completely he can make that happen by giving you that exclusivity and trust you crave.

In any case, please keep us posted as to how things develop between you two. I would love to know if it ends working out for you both. Good luck!

Hey I’m the guy that couldn’t get chicks like you, who then watches them [maybe] get used and tossed aside by guys like him. 5 months and he hasn’t told you he loves you? You talk about his “intentions”- -what does that mean? He says he wants to marry you ? He never wants to marry anyone? He wants to get married but “isn’t sure about things yet?” If you don’t know what the game is , he’s a player.

Well, that seems like the kind of thing you like….You say you’re rather aloof yourself; he’s out-aloofing you, and hopefully you won’t end up cold and bitter, instead of just cold.

He hasn’t said he loves me and I hate to be the girl who says I see it in his actions but I do? For one, he is very protective of me, I learned this the hard when I complained about one of my ahole male co-workers and during cocktail hours (we all work in the same financial district), he approached this said co-worker and I am not sure what was said but let’s say co-worker is scared of me now :s. He also knows how MESSED up the relationship I have with my family is and how it has affected me mentally. Sure he is aloof and will ignore me when I bitch about things like pms, girlfriends drama, my short legs etc but if I bitch about my family and he listens. Then there’s the obvious cliches of me going with him to his family events etc and presents me as his “girlfriend” at those events. He has not told me explicitly about his intentions regarding the future but makes comments like “you can’t keep eating like this (I have eating issues) ..won’t be healthy when I get you pregnant” or “I love your breasts, I hope they stay the same after u have my kids…well, there’s always implants”…lol I don’t know why I find these comments funny but I do. Maybe it is all game, it just brings me back to my original question of why would he keep gaming, and investing (time & money) in me when he has already gotten the “goods” in so many ways already….

Most of Heartiste theories has to be right. I have spent pretty much more time today (and my entire lunch hour) trying to analyze GUY than I have probably done in…well ever. And I hold myself out as classy, intelligent and (for the most part) independent, good looking lady. Eh, the theories work regardless.

well maybe you the only one he fucks like that maybe all the other bitches get fucked and thats it just a release cause you the special one.
dont get your hopes up you gonna get fucked like that forever though it will slow down more than likely

“He has not told me explicitly about his intentions regarding the future but makes comments like “you can’t keep eating like this (I have eating issues) ..won’t be healthy when I get you pregnant” or “I love your breasts, I hope they stay the same after u have my kids…well, there’s always implants”…lol I don’t know why I find these comments funny but I do. Maybe it is all game, it just brings me back to my original question of why would he keep gaming, and investing (time & money) in me when he has already gotten the “goods” in so many ways already….”

BE CAREFUL. Some men say such things because they want the woman to feel secure in the relationship and bring down her defenses. He could very well be sincere, but you shouldn’t take for granted what he says and set yourself up to think you have him when in the end it was all a hoax. The let down and disappointment can cause you emotional baggage long after the relationship ends. You really don’t have him unless he gives you that ring and you walk down the aisle. And even then as a married woman, you can’t take him for granted ever, especially if he is the kind of men who had many options and he chose you. He will cheat on you and you will lose him eventually. Remember, there is no unconditional love in romantic relationships as Hollywood like to erroneously portray. Relationships are a lot of work, loyalty, and consideration. Please proceed with caution.

However he just told me a month ago that he wants/demands exclusivity.

This has me all confused. He is undeniably alpha but he is also good to me and has never made me doubt his intentions. I thought Alphas were incapable of settling down with one person?

maybe you misunderstood him. when you heard him say ‘exclusive’, you assumed he meant the both of you. but in fact, he may have really meant exclusivity just from you. i.e., you’re not allowed to be with other guys, but he can keep his options open.

lol @ Anon, can you imagine? Him on a computer reading this? Knowing him, he would probably not tell me. I hope I made the facts vague enough. Now I am freaking out a bit. Did I overshare? sigh.

@ Wolfie is there some covert inference you are trying to make? I am interested in hearing it. I am sometimes afraid/intimidated by him as well. Just something intense about him sometimes….anyway I have already shared waaay too much. Thanks for your input guys!

And it doesn’t even have to be breaking the law type rule-breaking. I took a gal out for billiards the other day and I made up rules about what she had to do when a certain ball landed in the pocket. She loved it.

I think women love men who make rules and follow through on making the woman abide by said rules. Women also love it if you “punish” their disobedience. It exudes control, and they love a man in control despite all of their protests. So I am not surprised she liked your little game. Definitely a good approach. Keep it up.

The only rules she gets more attracted by you following are your own. If your rule is “work before women” and you flake on her for work, she’ll be mad but more attracted to you for following your rules. If your boss demands that you work and you flake on her because of his rules, she’ll think you’re just a pussy.

If you can successfully couple an attitude of happy sexuality with bemused mastery and outcome independent self-possession, you too can live a Life of Langella.
It doesn’t hurt to be very tall, well-built, extremely attractive when young, and with a smooth baritone voice that can charm the proverbial birds (in the British sense) out of the trees.

But, alas, Frank now looks like any old guy walking down the street wearing jeans and a baseball cap. Game or no game.

[heartiste: i bet he still cleans up better than most men his age, and probably better than a lot of men half his age. chicks dig charming mofos, no matter what they look like.]

“cajoling women into surrendering their most precious asset, is not so good for society as a whole”

lol. Society brainwashed me for 20+ years with bullshit Disney fantasies and feminist ideas on how to treat women that kept me a virgin till my early 20s. At the same time it brainwashed me into believing the only path in life to be successful is to sell my soul and become a corporate cog chasing the next promotion handed down to me by men richer than I’d ever be, if I begged for scraps long enough, and all so I could feel inadequate and incomplete as a man unless I was keeping up with the Joneses next door buying whatever ultimately useless and overpriced status symbol commercials and marketing brainwashed me into believing I needed to be feel complete until the next iteration of it.

…ya, I don’t really feel a deep responsibility to give a shit about what’s good for society.

“Men really do value relatively chaste women more as resources in whom to lavishly invest their time and energy.”

Leaving aside that they’re usually worse in bed, the main reasons a chick is relatively chaste is that either she’s ugly, she’s freakishly religious, or she hasn’t been around men who turn her on. Her threshold for what turns her on to the point where she’ll ignore her “rules” might be higher than a random hoodrat but she has exactly the same potential to be a slut.

Note that I specifically say “to the point where she’ll ignore her rules”. She’s still turned on the same way other girls are, attraction is attraction, but a princess fucking the chauffeur or a chick from a racist family fucking a black guy or a lawyer-cunt fucking the $10/hr janitor or the religious girl fucking the bad boy etc all have “rules” that help keep them from acting on that attraction.

Once you find the way to circumvent her rules, much as a well placed “she becomes the goddess again by candlelight”, she lets go and opens up and she’ll just backwards rationalize it later (or say it didn’t “count” because (insert bullshit reason)).

There is no Madonna/whore difference. It’s simply a factor of the seductive skills of the men she’s met and the mental framework constructed in her mind (by herself, her family, society, etc) to make it easier or more difficult to lay her. But the Madonna is the exact same girl as the whore. She just won’t reveal that around most men.

I’ve never know it to fail… nobody knows more about women than a guy who couldn’t get laid in his teens… often sours him for life, it does.

Of course he’s delusional… he deals with a very narrow spectrum of strumpets who fall for his bullshit and “lousy lay prudes” who laugh disparagingly at his antics.

Geez, early twenties? I was the slow-starter in my crowd, and I lost it within weeks of my 16th birthday to a busty young doll… but in mine own defense, I was a born romantic and had been holding out for love… lloozozozlllloozozozollll.

Lawd, by my early twenties, I had been through a stint in the Army, college, and more ass than the ladies’ powder room bench at the Waldorf Astoria.

Something I’ve noticed as I’ve gotten older: Emotionally shallow individuals often hate and resent people with depth of some kind. As a white nationalist, Greg Eliot has revealed himself as a person who has a real investment of some kind in the future of society. YaReally admits to pursuing instant gratification (chasing F-buddies and playing videogames), and thus resents people whose attitudes hint that his life is fundamentally lacking something.

lol I don’t think enough about them to waste the energy it would take to hate or resent them. At best I feel sad for them in general. The only reason I even acknowledge their existance is that they follow me around teh Interwebz blowing their load on my posts because they secretly love me and want to have my babies and it’s easier to piss & moan with one-off quips and nigger-lover this and that than it is to contribute anything of value.

Their opinions and approval of me are completely insignificant to me in the long run, no offense to them intended. I like making fun of them though, because I don’t think they realize I’m making a trollface when I respond lol

Have to disagree with you on this. There are many girls from cultural groups that have been slut shamed so hard that they are terrified to ride the carousel. I know many attractive girls from Greek, Armenian, Persian, Polish etc backgrounds that have been mind fucked from day one from their mothers and fathers “don’t shame the family, don’t shame your father by whoring around” and boom you get tons of prudish girls.

“There are many girls from cultural groups that have been slut shamed so hard that they are terrified to ride the carousel.”

Yep. That’s why I said they have “rules” that are harder for them to overcome. But they still get turned on. Unless you’re saying those girls never get wet. Is that what you’re saying? That you want frigid girls who are so fucked in the head by their upbringing that their pussy is literally incapable of getting wet? That’s the prized treasure you’re after?

This is a simple logic formula. Attraction gets girls wet, we all know that. Psychological hurdles/rules prevent them from acting on that attraction. Some girls have massive psychological hurdles, some have practically none, hell some have conditioning that makes it EASIER to fuck them.

But they are all capable of attraction and capable of fucking as much as the random slut dancing on the bar. There is no difference, even if that offends you or scares you. How many guys have been devesated to find out a girl they thought was innocent and who they tried to get with for years turned aroud and fucked the bad boy the first night? Oh, wait, YOUR girl is different, I forgot. You found the special one. lol

“Some girls have massive psychological hurdles, some have practically none, hell some have conditioning that makes it EASIER to fuck them”

AND

“But they are all capable of attraction and capable of fucking as much as the random slut dancing on the bar. There is no difference, even if that offends you or scares you.”

Just because they all are capable of feeling attraction does not equate them as equals. Some women need to feel MORE attraction in order to get their panties off. As you well stated. That’s why it’s your best bet to stick with the ones that are more prudish, that need more attraction triggers.

its not social and cultural “rules” and upbringing that keep a “good” girl from fucking every guy who gets her wet, its the very real prospect that a sexy cad may not stick around to invest in his seed. This is biologically rooted for good reasons.

good girls get wet for the same shit but they need more comfort and investment to make sure they don’t get left with child. the hurdles are more biological than psychological.

you may think a girl who doesn’t put out after a first date where you’ve done all the PUA shit correctly is “frigid” or has “disney fairy tale views” of sex, but the reality is she’s probably just making a good biological decision.

So, referring to the studies posted on this very blog, when the good-girl hits her period and is horny for alpha cock, she is magically teleported away and from another dimension the slutty whore version of her appears for a week, then is switched out again afterward?

Or are they the same girl with the same potential for sluttiness, except her “rules” change based on circumstance?

she’s horny for alpha cock when she’s ovulating but some girls have better control of those impulses than others so they don’t get left with child. this is biologically influenced. you are refusing to comprehend.

“It’s simply a factor of the seductive skills of the men she’s met and the mental framework constructed in her mind (by herself, her family, society, etc) to make it easier or more difficult to lay her.”

My point is: put the chaste woman in an evironment where her “rules” no longer hold her back (ie – a small-town girl going on Spring Break vacation, a married woman on a girl’s night out in Vegas with her BFF who won’t judge her, etc.) and she’ll let out her slutty side.

Most guys’ mistake is in thinking that there’s an actual difference in the make-up of a woman that affects how chaste/slutty she is. It’s in the social conditioning, judgement, consequences, etc. that surround her. Remove those, either by her own will, her life circumstances, her location, the people around her, or with skills of seduction, and she will be slutty.

Most of seduction is simply creating a situation where a woman doesn’t feel consequences or judgement for her actions. Speed seduction (aka PUA) is simply doing that in an extremely short amount of time.

This is why we isolate her from her friends, this is why we don’t make judgemental statements, this is why we don’t talk about her husband/boyfriend/etc. if we can avoid it, this is why we indirectly hit on her by working her group instead of just bee-lining it for her and forcing her to look like a slut in front of her friends, this is why we make her feel like she can trust us and let loose with us and that we won’t run around telling everyone she’s a slut, etc.

Try telling a girl “no one will ever know, you’ll never see me again” if you get resistance to the kiss, and see what happens. Try making out with her in front of her friends, then when she rejects that because of her ASD take her around a corner out of sight of her friends and try again. Did she get replaced magically with a second girl? Was she at first a chaste girl and then someone teleported her out and teleported in a slut? Or, OH SHIT, did you simply work around her “rule” of not wanting to look like a slut in front of her friends and be judged?

I’ve had fuckbuddies who I’ve fucked in the middle of public places full of strangers, who are complete angels around their friends and even their close friends think they’re total chaste good girls. I just understand their “rules” and work around them and create an environment where she can let her inner slut loose.

Clinging to the belief that there are two types of women is leftover Disney conditioning. Even guys who get laid a lot can cling to it with a white-knuckle death grip refusing to fully, completely, and wholly, swallow the red pill. Let go and accept reality as it is. “It’s only after you’ve lost everything that you’re free to do anything.”

the dichotomy is a false, but there is a continuum. no girls are pure snowflakes but some girls ARE less slutty than others, and require more comfort, connection and time to seduce. And this has nothing to do with psychological barriers or some character flaw. The biology of making a guy invest before sex means a lower chance she will be abandoned with a child after the seed gets tossed in her.

I realize you are a balls-deep big pimpin’ playa with a different ho every night, but most of us have healthy streaks of monogamy as well as flings and one-night stands. And for these LTRs, guys are correct to want girls on the left of the sluttiness bell curve, and the acknowledgement that such girls must exist by the mere laws of statistics does not mean one has a fairy tale madonna whore dichotomy.

I agree with what you’re trying to say but you’re misunderstanding the true meaning of chastity. It is true that there are no intrinsically chaste women. But chastity is not an intrinsic virtue that only some women are born with, it is a condition.

To say that there is no difference between chaste and unchaste women is like saying there’s no difference between thin and fat women. Chaste women will slut it up under the same conditions that whores slut it up. Just as thin women may fatten up under the same conditions which fatties fatten up. But that doesn’t make them the same. They can be intrinsically the same while being conditionally very different.

Those are two types of circumstances, not women. Remove the external circumstance (the alpha male) from the one that has him (either by him not existing or introducing higher value more attractive males), and add the external circumstance (the alpha male) to the one that doesn’t have him, and their behaviors reverse (the slut chastes up because her hypergamy has found the highest value male and he satisfies her, and the chaste one sluts it up trying to satisfy her hypergamy’s desire to find the highest value male).

This is very simple logic, as soon as you fully let go of the social conditioning that makes even red-pill men cling to the desperate notion that there is a magical fair and just system underlying the universe where they will, one day, if they do “the right thing” and follow “the right path”, be rewarded with a “happy ending” with that one girl who’s special.

Until you fully let go and accept the world for what it is, accept women for how they are, and learn to appreciate and love them despite and for that, you’re still choosing to keep one pinky finger in The Matrix.

(the slut chastes up because her hypergamy has found the highest value male and he satisfies her, and the chaste one sluts it up trying to satisfy her hypergamy’s desire to find the highest value male).

YaReally, your comments about women’s internal rules are absolutely true. It may piss off the guys here who want to believe in some mythical white female paragon of purity, but you’re right — they all have potential sluttery.

I’ve known lots of highly religious girls, and always ignored them for romance. Yet it has slowly dawned on me — through their lack of protestation during my friendly negging, and other ways — that they really are no different than the slutty ones.

The triggers are different, and the path to the bed is a bit weirder than non-religious girls, but the man who creates the right frame still wins the prize.

” I’ve known lots of highly religious girls, and always ignored them for romance. Yet it has slowly dawned on me — through their lack of protestation during my friendly negging, and other ways — that they really are no different than the slutty ones. ”

Your argument (and the argument of an inordinately large number of your posts) basically boils down to this: all women are equally r-selected. This is not accurate, even if women are more promiscuous than most people think.

That’s a gross oversimplification. The posts above acknowledge that some girls are more restrained/chaste/demure, but also acknowledges that all that means is that the either the circumstances or skills of the man attempting to seduce have to be sufficient to overcome that particular girl’s restraint. Or, as YaReally put it, their “rules.” I think “rules” is too concrete a term, because it implies that girls are conscious of them, which I generally doubt.

Get a girl’s buying temperature high enough, andy girl, and she’ll fuck (in the correct circumstance, which it’s your job to engineer). Which is not to say any particular guy could pull it off for any particular girl. But for every woman alive, there’s a man out there that she would turning into a raving nypho for in the right circumstance.

Whether that’s what you’re looking for is another question. But there are no magical unicorn girls out there that are just somehow magically “chaste” except for that one lucky fellah that put a ring on it…

Some girls…in order to raise the temperature that high…Only want a guy who has said “Yeah, we’re getting married if we aren’t married already.”

Don’t you get that? There are very intelligent women in this world, admittedly few in number, and I can assure you that no matter what stud comes around the thought “He’s just using me” will squash ANY possibility of sex. It’s so deeply deeply hurtful to know that a guy doesn’t intend to lift a finger to marry you that there is no raised temperature.

I preface this only with a “maybe if a girl was in highschool or in that age between puberty and thinking about marriage…but that’s why we have 18 and over laws”

[heartiste: there are few young pretty girls who would immediately swoon for a man who promised marriage early in their dating trajectory, unless he was famous or otherwise outrageously high status. most girls would run to the hills if they heard a man say that, thinking, rightly, that he was desperate or weird. now, it’s a different story once you’re knee deep in da LTR and she’s invested in you. then, the romance script flips and she’s doing the chasing for the man’s commitment.]

I found a picture of your “and I can assure you that no matter what stud comes around the thought “He’s just using me” will squash ANY possibility of sex. It’s so deeply deeply hurtful to know that a guy doesn’t intend to lift a finger to marry you that there is no raised temperature.” unicorn:

I’d say it’s mostly subconscious, but occasionally parts of it can be conscious (like a girl only wanting to date tall men). Even then, a lot of the rules are based around dating and not just fucking. A girl will fuck guys in secret that she knows her social circles and general long-term biology wouldn’t approve of her dating and investing in. It’s very complicated and specific to each girl, but I’m glad at least one person gets the jist of what I’m saying.

The fact that a woman will have sex at ALL means that there’s a point where her her requirements are passed and she’ll allow her buying temperature to take over and fuck a guy.

The notion that there is any statistically significant number of women for whom those requirements are iron-clad “he puts a ring on my finger” shit is silly Disney brainwashing and listening to retarded self-reported surveys where women say what they “want” (because we all know THAT’S accurate lol).

Most of the guys who put a wedding ring on a girl’s finger thought their girl was the Disney princess who would only fuck the guy who’s willing to marry her. What are the cheating, divorce, and cuckold rates again? And that doesn’t include all the guys who “don’t count” in a girl’s mind (which are often the guys she wouldn’t include as serious long-term relationship potential, like Juan from vacation or her ex-bf she broke up with years ago and then got drunk last night and it “just happened” but she regrets it so it doesn’t count, etc.)

But the guys who want to cling to the fantasy are welcome to keep doing whatever makes them happy. I’m just laying out how the Matrix actually works lol

A girl will fuck guys in secret that she knows her social circles and general long-term biology wouldn’t approve of her dating and investing in.
————–
Look, I know its popular to slam YaReally, but you gotta give cred where cred is due.

For example, meeting the white girls family, thats always a real trip. Then there are the white girls who act like they don’t know you in public, or park down the street from your house when they spend the night or come visit.

Girls are much more clever than we give them credit for; they know exactly what they are doing.

I don’t blame it past a certain point in life where I willingly chose to buy into it, but I see no reason to help keep it going. Change is good, let it fall apart, let’s see what happens when the pretty lies are fully exposed.

When the pretty lies are fully exposed, you will probabily be hunted by other men.

When men realise they are all alone and that everything is against them, society will colapse and men will take charge of what they see as their property, specially women.

Do you think “playas” will be tolerated in such society?
If I have nothing and no hope of getting nothing, and when I have nothing to lose at all for societies rules are not enfoeced, if I’m minimally integrated with other man in a given geographical location in a post-society-meltdown era, do you think I, and other men, will not kill flamboyant, feminised playas who will do nothing for me and want to “steal” my/our women?

YOU, YAREALLY, ARE THE ONE WHO IS COMPLETLEY INVESTED IN THIS DEGRADANT SOCIETY.

We empathize with your life experiences and appreciate you sharing them with this community. We all learn from each others open and honest sharing of individual experiences, especially me.

Also, congratulations for grasping the Madonna/whore complex—it is indeed a tough reality with which to make peace… especially after a bullshit Disney upbringing. You have obviously learned and matured since your celibate early 20s, also a positive development. It’s absolutely true that (virtually) all women have both archetypes within them. That spectrum is an expression of the tension between the creator-designed prime imperative to propagate the species while optimizing the genetics of the species (whore), and the species-designed innate desire to raise itself up out of the muck (Madonna) to increase its quality of life and spiritual potential—via civilization, through such things as running water, mass hygiene, organized defense forces, stable agriculture, medicine, science, written language, industry, city states, music, literature, art, contemplation of our place in the cosmos, etc. Granted, it’s easily arguable that those Madonna-driven evolutionary advancements for our species have done little to actually raise our species up out of the muck (and you’ll get little argument from me on that point), though I for one, do enjoy running water, and hot water at that.

The issue with promiscuous women for high value men is one of simple SMP economics pertaining to the “whore” side of the equation. Women have finite eggs (unlike infinite sperm) with which to perpetuate the species. Maintaining the genetic integrity of those eggs is of paramount importance to the species, and is affected by many causal vectors, including diet, environmental toxins, race, culture, etc. The larger the variety of male DNA (sperm) that a woman permits access to those eggs (whore), the more she commoditizes them, which is a tell to the sperm side of the market (men) that those eggs are less valuable, genetically speaking—the same as with any other good or service that its purveyor allows to become commoditized. A woman with low enough self esteem to grant access to her eggs to any douche bag in a club that is able to trigger her biological attraction cues is a woman into which high value men will not be inclined to invest their genetic energy—dump a fuck, sure; invest, not so much. Such low self esteem can develop from a multitude of causes. Looks, while a heavily weighted factor, are not the exclusive genetic marker that high value men evaluate when analyzing the investment of their genetic energy.

A woman’s ability to value her eggs to the point that she is above succumbing to giving in to the impulses flipped by her biological attraction switches triggered by a douche bag poser in a club, are a very high marker of genetic worthiness, indeed; she is a woman whose offspring will have a much higher probability of genetic success than the promiscuous club slut who gets knocked up by a hoodrat thug or PUA douche bag who managed to flip her switches. Truly high value women with genetically valuable eggs come from a family line that values protecting the preciousness of female DNA that is housed in her finite number of eggs. Historically, all successful cultures have figured this out and implemented cultural rules to adhere to this reality, as inconvenient as that may be to douche bag PUA clubbers.

Similarly, a woman who is unable to take note of her grotesque weight gain caused by ingesting processed GMO carbs like grains and high fructose corn syrup, as well as endocrine disrupting excitotoxins like aspartame and MSG, and then take action to reverse the process, has eggs that are visibly genetically damaged, and therefore she (her eggs) is not a good candidate in which a high value man is going to be compelled to invest his genetic energy—dump a fuck perhaps (yikes)—invest in, definitely no.

Investing genetic energy (beyond dumping a fuck) to fertilize the eggs of such creatures—whether promiscuous “sluts” or waddling land whales—simply isn’t on the radar for high value men. By all means, apply your energy to fucking them as you scale the learning and growing curve; just realize that they are not the pinnacle of success for a high value male. A woman who protects the genetic integrity of her eggs through conscious diet, exercise, management of emotions and hormones, healthy social relationships, etc. (Madonna), increases her SMP, and high value men will increase their bids accordingly.

Again, and genuinely, appreciate your contributions to this community (less the unscientifically backed framing). lol

[heartiste: some of those “club sluts” (and let’s stop assuming game only works on club sluts) are actually quite attractive, which makes them high value, albeit less high value than they would be if they didn’t fuck around.
i think some readers get confused about the primary characteristic which makes a woman high value. hint: it ain’t her class or money or degrees or personality.]

lol that was a very pretend-polite and elaborate way of rationalizing your Madonna/whore complex. Using more words doesn’t make it any less silly a notion.

I found a picture of your: “woman who protects the genetic integrity of her eggs through conscious diet, exercise, management of emotions and hormones, healthy social relationships, etc. (Madonna), increases her SMP, and high value men will increase their bids accordingly”:

But hey game only works on low self-esteem drunk hoodrat club sluts right? I mean that certainly hasn’t been proven to be feminist and white knight keyboard jockey theory again and again on this very blog or anything. You must be new here lol

Madonna/whore complex is a feminist expression.
Since you understand evo psych, why don’t you just acknowledge that it’s hard for a well-adjusted man to fall in love with a slut? I’m not talking about you or Jason and his whorewife. I’m talking about well-adjusted men.

Sure all women are the same… but sluts are disgusting for more than a pefunctory fuck.

Club girls, especially those who frequent elite clubs, are often the hottest girls in their markets, obviously.

Game works on virtually all females, given the right conditions, obviously.

The primary characteristic that makes a woman high value is technically her perceived genetic strength. The primary marker that signals her perceived genetic strength is her physical attractiveness as judged by scientifically verifiable metrics, obviously.

The vectors of genetic damage to female (and male) DNA that have arisen in the last fifty years of Western civilization’s rapid decay are unprecedented in recorded human history. (A primary theme of this site, unless I’ve misunderstood all this time?) The fact that club scenes, fun as they are, harbor many of those damaging vectors, is obvious, at least it was to me when I frequented them.

Class, money, degrees, or personality are secondary or tertiary markers of a woman’s potential genetic strength, for a variety of reasons having to do with access to quality nutrition, health maintenance, and the regulation of behavioral patterns, obviously.

Being able to game “club slut” tens into bed indicates lofty levels of progress in the mastery of one’s gaming package and personal transformation, obviously. However, it is not necessarily the pinnacle of progress for ALL men. There are levels of progress beyond that milestone.

Men at large, and I suspect that includes the men here at the Chateau, have a diverse range of goals with women (commonly including, among many others, the transmission of their legacy through genetically strong progeny), that they seek to achieve by ingesting the red pill and gaining proficiency with their own game, obviously(?).

Yes, the society we live in is clearly a manipulative piece of shit. The point is about what is needed so it isnt a rancid, disgusting, lying, deceitful, cruel, hate filled bag full of maggot ridden month old dog meat.

Why is that important? Well, either a guy is a taker or he’s a giver. We all pick one or some variant thereof. Some people even take to give, and some give to take. If im going to go down this road and be a taker (a player), because trying to be a simple beta-giver is a recipe for soul death, then Id at least like to do it so I can give back more than I take (in life, work, family, etc – players who say they ‘give’ by gaming lots of girls strike me as bs).

Not because some random asshole told me I have to, but bc that’s what I want to do.

Club sluts FTW.
I frequent a wide variety of different venues and there’s NOTHING even a fraction as good for meeting attractive, potentially available women of dateable age as night clubs.
At least not if you’re living/settled down someplace that isn’t either a beach- or ski resort.

“At the same time it brainwashed me into believing the only path in life to be successful is to sell my soul and become a corporate cog chasing the next promotion handed down to me by men richer than I’d ever be, if I begged for scraps long enough, and all so I could feel inadequate and incomplete as a man unless I was keeping up with the Joneses next door buying whatever ultimately useless and overpriced status symbol commercials and marketing brainwashed me into believing I needed to be feel complete until the next iteration of it.”

Run-on sentence?

OK never mind, but you need to rethink some of what you said. It’s incongruent.

You don’t like selling your soul to making money and becoming successful, albeit by their standards, but you have no problems selling your soul to sex? How is bedding countless women just to satisfy your urges without rhyme nor reason, better than excelling at a career? At what point and after how many women do you feel that you had your fill? Or at what point do you feel emptiness, uselessness, and unhappiness? When do you start looking for more than just meaningless sex?

Furthermore, since when is becoming wealthy or excelling at a career considered brainwashing? Why is it any less commendable than living like a drifter sleeping with woman after woman? Why is that not selling your soul? Anything that occupies your time could be thought of as selling your soul.

“ya, I don’t really feel a deep responsibility to give a shit about what’s good for society.”

Yeah, that’s why people who feel like you vote for Obama. They want to get their freebees and the hell with what’s good for society.

“Leaving aside that they’re usually worse in bed, the main reasons a chick is relatively chaste is that either she’s ugly, she’s freakishly religious, or she hasn’t been around men who turn her on. “

You’re delusional if you think these are the reasons a chick didn’t sleep with you. Maybe she could tell what you are all about and she wants no part of that in her history? Besides, ugly women give it up much faster because they don’t have many options. Pretty girls like to play hard to get, testing a man’s persistence and tenaciousness before they are ready to surrender to him.

“Her threshold for what turns her on to the point where she’ll ignore her “rules” might be higher than a random hoodrat but she has exactly the same potential to be a slut.”

Now, that IS true. Some women are harder to bed, but that only makes the thrill of the chase for the man more fun, not to mention a feeling of accomplishment ensues if he is successful. If he finally got her, then it implies he has power that penetrated her defenses, not to mention it means she is attracted to him. That’s a big compliment for the man, if not a total turn on. Isn’t it better to have a girl who is harder to bed than one of those sluts that drop their panties in a split second? I mean, I know sex is sex, but sex with a beautiful woman you worked hard to get is sweeter than it is with some cheap STD-ridden slut who had 10 men before you within the last week, or with some fat chic who can’t get any action so she is grateful you are even spitting in her direction.

“But the Madonna is the exact same girl as the whore. She just won’t reveal that around most men.”

I agree with this statement too, but I would add that it’s not just an issue of not revealing it around most men, it’s also about controlling your urges and how much you let yourself go, UNLESS you are ready to give it up to the right man. That’s what differentiates the true slut from the more controlled “good girl.” I just don’t like the Madonna analogy because there is no such thing. But some girls really try to be good girls and not sleep around despite how hot or how skilled the guy in question is who is trying to make them surrender the goods. It’s all about self-control. But rest assured that when she is ready to let go, it’s a big deal, because the more virtuous a woman is, the harder her fall, as opposed to the common slut who never gave self-control a second thought and gave it all up in her teens.

Anyway, I would think men love to train women like that. It gives them more control and more power, and I can’t see any man not liking a woman like that as his partner, especially the Alpha male who decides to settle down.

Maybe you should post on a site where people care what women think or want to listen to their rationalizing hamster? I hear Jezebel is nice.

You just yap yap yap without understanding that nothing you say holds any kind of weight or merit with anyone here because it’s all filtered through your hamster’s wheel. It would be like engaging the opinion of a 5 year old.

Nothing against you personally, I’m sure you’re a nice girl, but you’re in completely the wrong part of the Internet.

” You just yap yap yap without understanding that nothing you say holds any kind of weight or merit with anyone here because it’s all filtered through your hamster’s wheel. It would be like engaging the opinion of a 5 year old.”

I don’t have anything against you personally either, but I am not the only one who disagrees with you on some issues. Is it hard for you to deal with people who challenge you? To me that sounds like the behavior of a 5 year old.

Please prove me wrong. Until you can, don’t lecture me. I think I pinpointed you exactly.

“My point is: put the chaste woman in an evironment where her “rules” no longer hold her back (ie – a small-town girl going on Spring Break vacation, a married woman on a girl’s night out in Vegas with her BFF who won’t judge her, etc.) and she’ll let out her slutty side.”

No, I think those scenarios you painted are of sluty women to begin with. They were never chaste or true good girls. Any woman that loses her rules or morals just because she is away from her usual surroundings was just waiting for the right moment to unleash her sluttiness and was never a true good girl.

A better example is a chaste woman who met an extraordinary man or a man that knows the ways of a woman and can push all her buttons to make her ditch all of her rules, morals, and beliefs for him. She might be a fool but she was under his spell when she let herself go. Otherwise, why do you think women have rape fantasies about men they are attracted to? It’s usually women with rules that don’t want to be sluts and need the decision made for them by that man they are so attracted to. It’s a great way for the chaste good girl to reconcile her need to have sex with him without feeling guilty and judgmental about herself.

“I’ve had fuckbuddies who I’ve fucked in the middle of public places full of strangers, who are complete angels around their friends and even their close friends think they’re total chaste good girls. I just understand their “rules” and work around them and create an environment where she can let her inner slut loose.”

So like I said, those girls are not real good girls. They just act like that for appearances sake, thus they are not hard to bed at all. I doubt these women have true rules. They just don’t want to advertise their activities, which is wise, and such a girl is a bit smarter than her bar slut sisters.

Anyway, easy women to bed are no prize. They drop their panties for you, just like they did for 50 others before you. No great sense of accomplishment in getting one of those sluts to your bed. Try spending your talents on harder-to-bed girls. Then you can claim Alpha credentials.

No, it wasnt well said, it was ridiculous. I know a player who has a wife and kids with 6-7 looks and kids, he goes out and gets his fix on outside. Point is, he married the girl with the personality and satisfied the variety imperitive with random hotties. Its legit to have emotional/family needs met by one chick who looks ok while banging others. Odds are langela was doing exactly that.

In a sane society a man would have 3-8 wives, with a variety of appearances and personality traits. This would satisfy the biological imperatives of both the men and women.

Whoopi Golbberg? That might explain the secret of his success. He could be constitutionally incapable of appreciating feminine beauty, hence in possession of the natural aloofness that females find alluring. His narcissism and homosexual dalliances is further indication of a sexual orientation away from strict heterosexuality.

Read and learn, Gentlemen. Other men have said it before, and then our gynocracy rises up and smotes ’em into silence- therefore each generation must relearn the ways of the wise men of yore:

Title: The Ladies
Author: Rudyard Kipling

I’ve taken my fun where I’ve found it;
I’ve rogued an’ I’ve ranged in my time;
I’ve ‘ad my pickin’ o’ sweet’earts,
An’ four o’ the lot was prime.
One was an ‘arf-caste widow,
One was a woman at Prome,
One was the wife of a jemadar-sais,
An’ one is a girl at ‘ome.

Now I aren’t no ‘and with the ladies,
For, takin’ ’em all along,
You never can say till you’ve tried ’em,
An’ then you are like to be wrong.
There’s times when you’ll think that you mightn’t,
There’s times when you’ll know that you might;
But the things you will learn from the Yellow an’ Brown,
They’ll ‘elp you a lot with the White!

I was a young un at ‘Oogli,
Shy as a girl to begin;
Aggie de Castrer she made me,
An’ Aggie was clever as sin;
Older than me, but my first un —
More like a mother she were —
Showed me the way to promotion an’ pay,
An’ I learned about women from ‘er!

Then I was ordered to Burma,
Actin’ in charge o’ Bazar,
An’ I got me a tiddy live ‘eathen
Through buyin’ supplies off ‘er pa.
Funny an’ yellow an’ faithful —
Doll in a teacup she were,
But we lived on the square, like a true-married pair,
An’ I learned about women from ‘er!

Then we was shifted to Neemuch
(Or I might ha’ been keepin’ ‘er now),
An’ I took with a shiny she-devil,
The wife of a nigger at Mhow;
‘Taught me the gipsy-folks’ bolee;
Kind o’ volcano she were,
For she knifed me one night ’cause I wished she was white,
And I learned about women from ‘er!

Then I come ‘ome in the trooper,
‘Long of a kid o’ sixteen —
Girl from a convent at Meerut,
The straightest I ever ‘ave seen.
Love at first sight was ‘er trouble,
She didn’t know what it were;
An’ I wouldn’t do such, ’cause I liked ‘er too much,
But — I learned about women from ‘er!

I’ve taken my fun where I’ve found it,
An’ now I must pay for my fun,
For the more you ‘ave known o’ the others
The less will you settle to one;
An’ the end of it’s sittin’ and thinkin’,
An’ dreamin’ Hell-fires to see;
So be warned by my lot (which I know you will not),
An’ learn about women from me!

What did the Colonel’s Lady think?
Nobody never knew.
Somebody asked the Sergeant’s wife,
An’ she told ’em true!
When you get to a man in the case,
They’re like as a row of pins —
For the Colonel’s Lady an’ Judy O’Grady
Are sisters under their skins!

I’ve bedded a lot of sluts, especially this year, after a bit of a slump (personal issues can seriously affect your inner game, even with hoes). I’ve bagged about 7 since May, for varying lengths of time. They were in an age range of 23 to 44 y.o.

I have mixed feelings about it. I guess sluts are useful in forming a detachment to such matters. You end up not giving enough of a crap about it to get remotely emotionally attached. It becomes ho-hum until one day you wake up and, well, women don’t seem so fucking special to you anymore, no matter their level of slut-hood.

Then you wonder why you ever took any woman so seriously in the first place. Especially looking back from the age of 41 on all of your prior ‘relationships’, that at the time felt so special.

Then you shrug your shoulders, go out for a pint, and bag another slut.

If you had told me that the two studliest guys from high school who dated the hottest chicks in the world are now with their little brown pygmies (not joking on one of them..what jungle he went to god only knows…we’ll see what he brings home next!) I would have said “Noooo way!”

[heartiste: i would have said “not much of a way”, because the exceptions don’t disprove the rule.]

Nothing good comes of young men who get too much sex.

[i bet those men would disagree.]

There’s a sweet spot….there was a couple of 6’0 supermodel types from highschool who got married and have kids now….That’s the sweet spot. That’s what I want for my future sons.

That’s the problem with bedding too many women and too many sluts. You lose your hope that you can find one normal woman that you can love, live and build a life with. I am not sure it’s such a good existence. It leaves men feeling empty, discouraged, and pessimistic. Eventually, for all the success with sluts a man has, it does make him depressed and feeling like a loser when he turns 50 and still single with no one special. All the 20-year old sluts in the world can’t fill that void. It’s the same for men as it is for women, just it takes longer for men to feel that way than it takes for women to feel that way. Maybe women feel like that in their 30’s and men will take another 10 to 15 years later to feel the same way. But either way, it a similar feeling for both sexes.

@ Anonymous – feeling jaded is right. Eventually you’ll end up feeling depressed that you can’t find one good woman to settle down with and build a life. Start grazing in newer pastures.

The hard part, in your How To Be Longella crib sheet, is item 4, that mirroring thing. The rest of them can at least be faked without knowing much, but that one’s a skill. Worthy of an article or three of its own.

G. Cassanova was an 18th century version, down to the details, of this guy. Indeed, he owns the name for it.
Cassanova was relentlessly curious about the world around him. He traveled everywhere and met everyone that mattered and then wrote about it. He became a close buddy of B. Franklin. Fuck knows what they laughed about when they were down in their cups.
As he told it, he lost his cheery at a young age to two (2) teenaged sisters in one night in the back-room of a road-side tavern.
In my mind, this is a bit like A. Mozart writing his first complete symphony at the age of eight and a half.
The reason you can believe both of these stories is because of what they did afterwards. The great tru-ism of art history is that fakers cannot do it again, on demand.

The two teenaged sisters weren’t in a roadside tavern. IIRC, it was at their home. His autobiography is still in print — in many volumes — and it’s worth reading for many reasons. His story about escaping from the Leads prison is terrrific, for example.

He said the key was utter confidence. In one scene, he writes of looking at his reflection in a pond, and admitting that he wasn’t all that good-looking.

One of the sexual positions he enjoyed with one of his lovers was The Standing Tree, and people still haven’t figured out what that was.

“And here we see in Langella that common suite of personality characteristics that one finds in others like him. An executive summary of the alpha male beloved by women might look something like this:
1. Be social.
2. Be curious.
3. Be narcissistic.
4. Be the mirror that reflects what women want to believe about themselves.
5. Be selfish and unpredictable.
6. Be sexually nonjudgmental.
The best players of past and present are ever-searching for new experiences, their curiosity unquenchable. They love themselves, and women are nothing if not viscerally intrigued by overconfident men. They follow their own rules, and women love rule-breakers. They are selfish, and women, despite what they say to the contrary, adore the company of self-oriented men. They are sexually unburdened, knowing as they do that an attitude that might burden a woman with doubts about her actions and cause her to dwell too laboriously on the potential consequences is a road leading away from sex.”

I wish I could remember her name, but in Langella’s book he was in a play with an older Hollywood actress who was long out of movies. One night when partying with her she begged him to let her give him a blow job. Her money quote was something like, “Close your eyes and pretend it’s someone else. I don’t give a shit” So he did. And when she offered a second round he let her empty him again.

Tomorrow our country will be rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Not that it matters, since the ice-berg is coming regardless, but it would be interesting to see Mitt Romney win the electoral college but lose the popular vote. This would optimize SWPL butt-hurt and lead to the greatest number of black people rioting.

“Of course, there is the unrestrained sexuality — there are strong hints that Langella was bisexual, or at least enjoyed the spectacle of flirtatiously taunting gay men, and he was no stranger to bedding past-their-prime aging starlets”

I am sorry to say, Frank Langella is no Alpha. First, he is a big time liberal. He’s a vegan, global warming believer, and social justice idiot. That already puts a huge dent in his Alpha credentials. Second, he bedded many ugly older women (and some young ones too) that no respectable Alpha would be caught dead with, even if they were the last women on earth. Beautiful women are the gems in a man’s crown. Ugly women dissolve it. I mean he was 34 and Rita was 54, what man his age in his right mind would bed her? Granted she was beautiful in her heyday, but to pretend she was that way to candlelight is vomit worthy. Couldn’t he get younger women? No, I think he just likes older women as some very un-alpha males do (notice I didn’t use the term beta. Being un-alpha is worse than being beta). If a man tells you he likes older women, you know he is far away from being Alpha. Third, as if the first two aren’t enough, he is definitely bisexual. I am sorry, but Alpha males don’t have sex with other men.

Therefore, I think you are confusing all the sex he had with being Alpha. If the amount of sex one has the indicator of how much an Alpha he is, then gay men would be the Alpha of Alphas. Therefore, I think it’s a man’s behavior that points to his Alphaness, not the amount of sex he has. Men like Frank Langella are no Alphas.

I’ve mentioned before that I’m a big fan of extrapolating on William Gibson’s on-the-money analysis that the fabulously rich are no longer quite human, since overcoming the daily struggles is a crucial part of humanity. “Hot girl crazy” emanates from the same phenomenon, having drones of beta wanna be suitors cater to your every whim. I can only assume that being able to fuck absolutely whatever you want would lead to similar idiosyncratic behaviour, naley boninng an old rita hayworth just for the notch etc.

ummm…he’s famous and won a Golden Globe for his acting..and is now an author reviewed by the most respected paper– beta or not– in the US.. .you’re some neo-con dimwit slut typing in a tract house..try to concentrate on where you are

and who gives a fuck about acting? actor’s memorize lines someone else wrote, in costumes someone else designed, on a set someone else designed, at the specific time the director decides. actors are overrated, overvalued, and can barely be considered artists.

and his book is a typical hollywood memoir that really isn’t worthy of note.

First off, I think that there are more different types of men (and women) than just Alphas and Betas. Nothing is ever quite that simple.
Second, men who go for older women usually either can’t get the young ones or have some sort of weird psychological hangup. If those episodes with the more, erm, mature ladies happened AFTER Mr. Langella became famous, it can only be the latter.
Third, I’ll have to disagree to some extent on the bi/gay thing. I’m no expert on the subject, but based on my observations, being Alpha (football jock,etc.) doesn’t necessarily exclude bi and/or gay tendencies.
And there’s no shortage of gay guys who are plenty Alpha on the more ‘militant’ side of the lifestyle.

“men who go for older women usually either can’t get the young ones or have some sort of weird psychological hangup. If those episodes with the more, erm, mature ladies happened AFTER Mr. Langella became famous, it can only be the latter.”

There you go; that’s what I was trying to say. I think he likes older ladies as a result of some mental issues he has. That can’t make him Alpha by any stretch, I don’t care how much sex he had.

Regarding older women and younger men, I think that taste in a man gets developed in him if his first sexual experience was with a much older woman. Let’s say a 16-year old having sex for the first time with a 30+ year old woman, there is a strong chance that throughout his adult life he would be looking to have sex with much older women. I bet you Frank Langella’s first sexual experience was with an older woman. That’s why he knows how to relate to them so well and get what he wants. It has provided him an easy stream of sex because women in that point in their lives would be grateful for any morsel of interest from a man, let alone a much younger man. So he learned to exploit this stream to the max, but that doesn’t make him Alpha.

It’s hard to explain what I mean exactly, but a true Alpha man is a very elusive thing. Most men today are not it; they are a cheap imitation. It’s nothing tangible, meaning it is not based solely on how much sex you have. It’s an attitude and the way you carry yourself. It’s what you radiate to the world, not how many beds you jumped in per night. I mean, you can bed 3 girls in one night, but be a total flake or loser in other areas.

“And there’s no shortage of gay guys who are plenty Alpha on the more ‘militant’ side of the lifestyle.”

That’s another thing, being militant is not necessarily the indication of Alpha. If that were the case then violent criminals and rioting blacks would be called Alphas. I don’t find them Alpha in the least. I see them as barbaric.

In any case. No matter how Alpha-like a gay male is, he isn’t Alpha (in our sense) if he’s doing it with men. However, I do think that your theory could be right in more broader terms. Look at Alexander The Great. He was a great general and had sex with men because that’s what men did in his day. So it’s possible to be an Alpha gay/bi.

It’s hard to put your finger on it, but I think Alpha in our sense is determined by how you relate to women. How you treat them, what you expect of them, setting boundaries women know they can’t cross if they want to be with you, communicating they can’t walk all over you, etc….. I also think this could be stretched to cover how successful you are in your chosen filed. The more successful men have more testosterone and in turn bed more women, and bedding more women makes them produce more testosterone which makes them more successful at work. It’s a cycle where one action begets another. Therefore, I also think being Alpha is greatly connected to how successful you are in your chosen field, and that’s why if you are a loser in every other aspect of your life who gets to bed 3 women per night, you’re no Alpha. You’re just using sex to escape your problems or the realities of not being successful.

To me, the definitions on the ‘Alpha Game’ blog make a lot of sense. The classic ‘Alpha’ being defined as the tall, good-looking captain of the football team, who is being groomed by his rich daddy to some day take the reigns as CEO. Almost all women want him, almost all men want to be him. His success is basically pre-determined by a mixture of extremely good genes and a privileged birth. There can be variations on this theme, of course, but that would be the textbook example against which all others will be judged.

“There can be variations on this theme, of course, but that would be the textbook example against which all others will be judged.”

LOL doesn’t it sound a bit like Christian from 50 shades? OK, he wasn’t born rich, he was a self-made man, but he had all the other ingredients you mentioned. Isn’t it any wonder why millions of women fell for his character?

That’s my point exactly. Who would date Whoopi? She is ugly. No Alpha would anyway. All he wanted was easy sex with whoever. He wasn’t that discriminating. He bedded ugly, old, and young alike, as well as men. Yuck! I never thought of him as Alpha or Alpha like. BUT, he was very tantalizing as Dracula, I must say. His voice is very hypnotic, not just as Dracula but in other roles as well. There was definitely a hypnotic quality about him, which probably made his older woman fall for him.

About the bisexual tendencies of certain womanizing men, there is a theory that male homosexuality may be an excessive dose of the slight feminization that charming men have, as was discussed over at West Hunter:

For example, the arts always seem to have been a haven for gays and sexually ambiguous men, and it seems to be human nature for artists to attract groupies. Certainly in modern times male poets and artists of all kinds frequently exhibit effiminate or flamboyant behavior. Reknowned pick-up artist Mystery is decidedly effeminate in mannerisms and presentation, not unlike a Mick Jagger or David Bowie. The overly flowery language of medieval Cassanova types perhaps stems from the same genetic suite of behavioral traits. Also, preachers and politicians share many similar characteristics with rock stars – they have to sway large audiences with pretty words, and keep attention drawn on themselves. Indeed, the high ratio of homosexual to heterosexual sex scandals of Churches and politicians worldwide could be interpreted as circumstantial evidence that both gays and gayish heterosexual men tend to channel their reproductive energies in roles where they use their natural flamboyance and artsiness to attract mates.

Also, while flamboyant, artsy, effeminate men certainly have a larger cultural presence now than ever before, could that very trend explain the increased frequency of homosexuality in our culture vs. medieval/hunter gatherer times?
It would take civilization reaching a certain level of prosperity for effeminate men to gain a reproductive edge by being weak yet flamboyant artists and seducers – how many men can earn a living in the arts, in Malthusian conditions? And as Western Civ emerged from this malthusian backdrop, perhaps that new freedom allowed heterodox reporductive strategies like male flamboyancy to flourish. In a pond full of big fish, brightly colored guppies certainly won’t flourish, but once in an aquarium, they do.

And (by me):

I agree with you that men with “rock-star” like personalities would have had a great edge in earlier times, especially among the upper classes of Medieval Europe. These were the Cassanovas, Rasputins and Klemens von Metternich’s of the time—the Mic Jaggers and Hugh Hefner’s of their day. Having a way with the ladies is always good for a man. If a touch of “feminine” flamboyance greatly boosted a man’s mating success, it would surely be worth losing a few potential nieces and nephews that the occasional gay brother failed to sire. Well, for some men, anyway; obviously being a playboy wasn’t something all men could do, particularly in a society where most people were confined to backbreaking farm work that required strict monogamy. But among the upper classes, where the peasants do the work for you (and fight the wars for you), all was fair game. The flamboyant playboy is likely an evolutionarily stable strategy in settled farming societies without a history of violent struggle for mates and with a solid class of elites. Gay men are an extreme form of this trait just like autistics are perhaps extreme nerds.

This article is a bit hypocritical. One cannot sit and rail on and on about the moral decay in American women, and then celebrate the same lack of morals in American men.

We all know being a scumbag gets lots of a girls, and screwing over people gets one rich. That doesn’t make either activity a morally grandiose thing to do or something to brag about. Life is more than sex and money.

Celebrating psychopathy because those traits are attractive?

I like to play and fuck as much as the next guy but this shit is ridiculously over the top.

IMO being a GOOD PERSON is MORE IMPORTANT than banging the most hot chicks. There is a difference between recreational sex with hot women and being an oversexed psychopath.

What is attractive to women is not necessarily conducive to a good society. We may have the instincts of cavemen, that doesn’t mean we are slaves to them.

“What is attractive to women is not necessarily conducive to a good society.”

What is conducive to a good society can also be conducive to a bad society. What is harmful to a good society can also be harmful to a bad society. So ask yourself, do we have a good society or a bad society? Should it be upheld or demolished?

“Fuck Martha Stewart. Martha’s polishing the brass on the titanic. It’s all going down man, so, fuck off with you’re sofa units, and string green stripe patterns. I say never be complete. I say stop being perfect. I say let’s evolve, let the chips fall where they may.”

Oh this society without a doubt is fucked up. As evidenced by the American People’s need to have a giant daddy State under a scumbag liberal American in name only like Obama. I say tear it down!

But I prefer the softer views of conservative women as found on sites like The Thinking Housewife. Women who understand thier biological function and proper division of labor between the sexes.

I’m a lover of women. I don’t grudge fuck them. I leverage minor celebrity status and high fashion and just the right mix of sensitivity and aloofness.

I’ve been in several LTR’s of 5 years in length and never once been cheated on. The problems were always intercouple ande never a problem with outsiders because they know at the bottom of the closet is an always packed “bug out bag” and I’m not afraid to abandon everything if I get uncomfortable with the situation.

In short I don’t need to a dark triad of psycopathy and misogyny. I just leverage my musical talent in bars and pubs to attain minor celebrity status in whatever venue I’m in and basic PUA skills developed over a few years.

The idea that the ideal man is a psycopathic, emotionless sex fiend is simply foreign to my personal experience and I feel much fulfilled with honest sex than a misogynistic grudge fuck on a woman who did nothing but find herself attracted to me.

“There is a difference between recreational sex with hot women and being an oversexed psychopath.”

Thank you. That’s why I have been trying to say here so many times. There is a limit to how much sex one can have before it becoming an escape from reality of being a good-for-nothing loser with nothing to offer.

The amount of sex a man has is not necessarily the indicator of his Alphaness. How about being a man of your word, following through on your promises, setting a good example, being protective, being a leader? I think these are more alpha qualities than how many girls you bed in a night.

[…] Nevertheless, the fact remains that it’s a prerequisite to suspend one’s subconscious slut judgment and actively encourage in women the jettisoning of any and all incipient shame if the lifestyle of the glamorous cad is your goal. [källa] […]

“The Dark Triad features prominently among these men, but so too does a knack for pleasing women by telling them what they crave hearing. Alpha males are simply better than other men at helping women experience good feelings through verbal communication.”

It’s a bit of a contradiction, as I thought most of you guys don’t want to please women or tell them what they want to hear for fear of giving women too much power or ammunition? I thought you guys pride yourselves on being jerks?

Anyway, I do agree that a real Alpha knows how to strike a balance between these two opposite philosophies. I am just not sure that many of you guys knows how to play both sides of the fence, or that Frank Langella is an Alpha.

What a great post. I find that success is always found in the happy medium between two contradictory extremes. In this case, in the balance between the self-importance of having the world revolve around you and the ability to genuinely see yourself as a third party operating within someone else’s life. Viewing myself completely from the outside is the only way I escape doubt or fear of consequences. Maybe you can only fully exploit solipsism if you know what it feels like.